Donald Sweeney and Vickie Sweeney Moulton v. Eric Erwin

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: June 4, 1999
• Docket: 01A01-9807-CH-00387
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

FILED June 4, 1999 DONALD SWEENEY and ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. VICKIE SWEENEY MOULTON, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Plaintiffs/Appellees, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9807-CH-00387 VS. ) ) Cheatham Chancery ) No. 9031 ERIC ERWIN, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

APPEALED FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF CHEATHAM COUNTY AT ASHLAND CITY, TENNESSEE

THE HONORABLE ALLEN W. WALLACE, CHANCELLOR

ROBERT L. PERRY, JR. 102 Frey Street Ashland City, Tennessee 37015 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees

LAURA TEK 1994 N. Gallatin Road, Suite 315 Madison, Tennessee 37115 Attorney for Defendant/Appellant

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

BEN H. CANTRELL, PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S.

CONCUR: CAIN, J. COTTRELL, J. MEMORANDUM OPINION1

This is an appeal from a chancery decree awarding specific performance

to the purchasers of a tract of real estate and denying a counterclaim for rent. The

lower court rendered the decree after a full evidentiary hearing on the merits. The

appellant has not furnished this court with a transcript of the evidence heard at the

trial.

The only issues raised on appeal relate to the preponderance of the

evidence. Without a transcript of the evidence presented at the trial, we must

conclusively presume that the facts support the chancellor’s decree. Leek v. Powell,

884 S.W.2d 118 (Tenn. App. 1994).

We, therefore, affirm the judgment below. Remand the cause to the

Chancery Court of Cheatham County for any further proceedings necessary. Tax the

costs on appeal to the appellant.

____________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S.

CONCUR:

_____________________________ WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE

_____________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE

1 Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals reads as follows:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or mod ify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORAN DUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and s hall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.

-2-